You Can’t Handle The Truth

Jonathan Strong of The Daily Caller notes an interesting and instructive conversation that was held publicly between lefty blogger Matthew Yglesias and National Review’s Mark Hemingway. During their exchange on Twitter, lefty Yglesias claimed that lying is a legitimate tactic for “advocates” to use to win the policy argument, thereby admitting that liberals think it is OK to lie in order to get their policies in place.

On his Twitter feed, Yglesias told Hemingway, “I think fighting dishonesty with dishonesty is sometimes the right thing for advocates to do, yes. That’s an honest view.”

Need I say more? In case I do need to say more, Matthew Yglesias was one of 400 leftist members of JournoList, a group consisting of leftist journalists and professors and the like. And during their conversations, they discussed ways to attack those on the right who were bringing up facts. One way they discussed was to accuse a Conservative — it didn’t matter who — of racism.

In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

So, a member of JournoList very explicitly claims lying is A-Okay and another member of JournoList advances the idea of calling Obama’s foes racist without any evidence whatsoever. To say the leftist JournoList media and professors lie for their agenda is to claim the oceans are wet. But one member of the leftist JournoList publically admitted as much. But anything for their agenda, right?

117 Comments

To Hitchcock, time and again, if one disagrees with him, one is a liar. Perhaps this is an indicator that Hitchcock doesn’t understand what a lie is, which is why he makes this accusation so often. Moreover, he misunderstands the hazards involved in the practice of induction, that is generalizing from too small a sample, and the use of at least minimal credible documentation when stating an alleged fact. And then there is always the character assassination game done by labels, such as leftists or racists.

Let’s take a look in his topical piece here:

“For Liberals, deception is an important tactic.”

Induction: A statement made by Matthew Yglesias does not necessarily represent Liberals, except to Hitchcock.

“Need I say more?”

Character assassination: Harry Reid says he can’t see how any Hispanic can be a Republican. Explain how this is “racism”, Hitchcock. It is Reid’s opinion based on the the new Arizona Republican policy on immigration, which is where the racism actually might be, in this policy of the Arizona Republicans.

“And during their conversations, they [JournoList members] discussed ways to attack those on the right who were bringing up facts. One way they discussed was to accuse a Conservative — it didn’t matter who — of racism.”

No documentation: Here undocumented statements by a wingnut blogger is assumed by Hitchcock to be the truth. This is opinion misrepresented as facts or as truth, which Hitchcock does all the time.

“But one member of the leftist JournoList publically admitted as much. But anything for their agenda, right?”

Induction: One or two members are labeled leftist and are assumed to represent the agenda of 400 alleged members of so-called JournoList.

These are the kinds of tactics used by propagandists to stir up trouble and advance their agenda. These tactics are deceptive and weak, as obvious in this Hitchcock post; nevertheless they can be very influential to those who are not well informed.

People need to be called out when they bring forth this crapola! And to be honest, we all commit these sins at times.

PS: Unfinished business: Hitchcock, yes or no, did you serve in the military? Why does this matter? Because it goes to an issue of character and credibility, that’s why.

Two members of the Republican Party cheated on their wives. Therefore, all Republicans cheat on their spouses, and everything that comes out of Mark Sanford’s and John Ensign’s mouths from now on must be morally wrong and therefore ignored completely.

/snark

Yes, Yglesias and Ackerman (and Chris Hayes, who also suggested the “racism!” tactic) were/are wrong to suggest that lying is a legit strategy. But that doesn’t mean that everything they say is therefore a lie, nor does it mean that everyone who associates with them is therefore a liar. Individual statements and actions must be evaluated individually.

Liars of the sort under discussion here, blatant public liars who ply their villainy in print and broadcast media, carry the indelible burden of their duplicity. They can never be taken at their word, the presumption of accuracy and their personal and professional integrity is forfeit. The presence of a Matthew Yglesias or a Spencer Ackerman is a flashing neon sign warning they and their associates can’t be trusted.

Consequently, the associates and enablers of exposed liars are known by the company they keep, and judged by the same standards one applies to liars and their willing accomplices.

“Yes, Yglesias and Ackerman (and Chris Hayes, who also suggested the “racism!” tactic) were/are wrong to suggest that lying is a legit strategy. But that doesn’t mean that everything they say is therefore a lie, nor does it mean that everyone who associates with them is therefore a liar. … “

What it does do is reveal how their left-wing moral sensibilities relative to other citizens operate. What it does mean is that you cannot rest assured that they think leveling false and malicious charges against you or others is wrong.

Which rules them out as worthwhile political or moral peers. You might as well drink with a known poisoner.

DNW, it’s fair to suggest that statements by someone who admits habitual dishonesty ought to be examined more carefully. (I’d also argue that we can’t “rest assured” that any public figure isn’t blowing smoke up our backsides, but especially with folks like those listed, and Breitbart on the right who has acknowledged not caring about facts.) But that doesn’t mean you can just reject anything they say outright. It just means the grain of salt you take with their statements gets a bit larger.

“So, a member of JournoList very explicitly claims lying is A-Okay and another member of JournoList advances the idea of calling Obama’s foes racist without any evidence whatsoever. To say the leftist JournoList media and professors lie for their agenda is to claim the oceans are wet. But one member of the leftist JournoList publically admitted as much. But anything for their agenda, right?”

Pretty much.

When you are dealing with the post-modern morally-deconstructed appetite entities of the left LOL – and here it is important to remember their own systematic and consciously preferred deconstruction of the concept of morality into power relations between either individuals or groups – you are dealing with a type of organism that simply has not internalized, and proudly so, the same kinds of inhibitions and values you have, and with whom therefore, no real moral compromise or modus vivendi is ultimately possible.

Their basic predicates are just too radically different. And in order to get what it is that they want, i.e., control, they must deprive you of what it is that you want, i.e., freedom.

You see morality as necessarily generated out of human existence and in some ways fundamentally rooted in our nature; they see it as an arbitrary and culturally relative social construct. People like you see individual humans as the loci of objective moral value; the left sees morality as operative on the collective level. People like you see meaning as inherent in existence of the universe; the post-modern left sees it as generated out of the projects and narratives they socially create and then impose. People like you, see yourselves as working out your personal salvation and your life projects individually within a properly constructed a political clear space; whereas the progressive left sees “salvation” in the management of the species, during its temporary life, toward the fulfillment of unconditional projects they have created to centrally reshape mankind and the world for some future end. It’s an end they can’t clearly explain the necessity for, and are not much good at even describing, but which justifies to their mind whatever coercive acts they think suitable to achieving it … again, whatever “it” is.

Of course as far as they are concerned, in the end everyone is just going to wind up eternally dead anyway. But that’s no reason for them not to yoke you into harness and then direct (in principle at least) every moment of your existence in the meantime.

In other words, they will only stop laying aggressive and unconditional claims against your life, when they run into a brick wall and are set down hard enough to give them pause.

By the way, since Comrade Kushchenko is so interested and demanding regarding your autobiography, why do you think it’s been so difficult to get him to answer these simple, not very intrusive, questions?

1. Is there anything at all beyond the rightful scope of legitimate government to command or prohibit? If so, what, and why?

DNW: “What it does do is reveal how their left-wing moral sensibilities relative to other citizens operate. What it does mean is that you cannot rest assured that they think leveling false and malicious charges against you or others is wrong.

Which rules them out as worthwhile political or moral peers. You might as well drink with a known poisoner.”

Substitute left for right in your statement, DNW, then your own statement well applies to YOU!

Hube: “Translation: I am trying to lock up yet another thread, so that I can then complain about “lack of freedom of speech” (whilst once again demonstrating complete ignorance of the First Amendment).”

Your prediction proved to be incorrect!

If a lock up ever occurs, it is by choice of the commenters, or by action of the blog owner. I have no power or authority over either.

And btw, you are a fine one to speak about ignorance of the First Amendment, since you have well demonstrated on your own blog that you do not honor it. Fortunately we have a person here who does, and that of course is Dana, who sets another example regarding ad homs. You would do well to follow his example, Hube! In fact, many of us on here would do well as well!

“DNW, it’s fair to suggest that statements by someone who admits habitual dishonesty ought to be examined more carefully. (I’d also argue that we can’t “rest assured” that any public figure isn’t blowing smoke up our backsides, but especially with folks like those listed, and Breitbart on the right who has acknowledged not caring about facts.) But that doesn’t mean you can just reject anything they say outright. It just means the grain of salt you take with their statements gets a bit larger.”

No, Jeff. It’s fair to say that, when someone admits to believing that lying is a socially useful tool, and advocates doing so in order to manipulate the behavior of his fellow citizens, then he need no longer be regarded in such terms.

This has nothing to do with some abstract observation made by Hitler to Goering on the color of the sky, and every thing to do with who is morally fitted to be regarded as worthy of political and moral trust.

It’s not as if, after all, we have so little information available to us that we need to include known liars in the circle of our valued associates in hopes of gleaning fragments of genuine information from the lying chaff they are spewing. They can simply be dispensed with; as there are plenty better where they came from.

If a lock up ever occurs, it is by choice of the commenters, or by action of the blog owner. I have no power of authority over either.

Are you being purposely obtuse? Why were the threads in question shut down, then? Was it not b/c of your continued insistence for answers to irrelevant questions in BOTH threads?

And btw, you are a fine one to speak about ignorance of the First Amendment, since you have well demonstrated on your own blog that you do not honor it.

LOL! Thanks for proving my point, Fossil. AGAIN. The First Amendment pertains to GOVERNMENT, idiot, not the private sector. Is my blog a function of government, Fossil. Here, I’ll help you: No, it’s not. Therefore, I am not obligated to give ANYONE a voice on MY blog that I do not wish. However, 99% of the time I usually do. It’s only when woefully ignorant saps like you come by and refuse to follow the rules and requests of the owner that commenting gets suspended. IOW, your view is akin to an outsider telling a boss how he should run his business… and then gets pissed off when such advice is ignored.

It seems to me that you got carried away here this time (surprise) and the owners decided to shut down two threads. Are you going to scream about the First Amendment again, Fossil? Or will you take a rudimentary class on the Constitution to realize you have no case?

DNW: “When you are dealing with the post-modern morally-deconstructed appetite entities of the left LOL – and here it is important to remember their own systematic and consciously preferred deconstruction of the concept of morality into power relations between either individuals or groups – you are dealing with a type of organism that simply has not internalized, and proudly so, the same kinds of inhibitions and values you have, and with whom therefore, no real moral compromise or modus vivendi is ultimately possible.”

Most would agree that the thrust for wars of choice rests mainly with the Right; so what does that have to say about your fictional “post-modern morally-deconstructed appetite entities”? Answer: Your statement is pure fiction! Yet more evidence is the basically self-centered, selfish, and arrogant attitude exhibited by the Right, assuming, of course, that you can properly be regarded as a spokesman for the Right.

“You [Who?] see morality as necessarily generated out of human existence and in some ways fundamentally rooted in our nature; they see it as an arbitrary and culturally relative social construct.”

First of all, you have garbled the use of the pronoun “you”, adding more confusion to your rant which is uncharacteristically very poorly written. You rushed it, apparently!

Nevertheless, not only do you make an unsubstantiated assignment of the “you” and the “they”, you have found a way to state the same thought with different words in each clause. Said another way, you cannot effectively refute my claim that the Right do not “see it [morality] as an arbitrary and culturally relative social contract”! Your assumed absolutist claim here does not stand up to scrutiny since various traditional religious/cultural philosophies do not agree in all aspects of their core moral principles. Certainly you would not dare to argue that varied historical experiences have produced identical “human existences”.

Just as Einstein and others have tried to consolidate and unify the laws that describe the sub-atomic world with the universe, so have philosophers attempted the same regarding morality. As far as I can tell, both have failed, so far!

“People like you see meaning as inherent in existence of the universe; the post-modern left sees it as generated out of the projects and narratives they socially create and then impose. “

Here you fail to differentiate between faith and science, one dealing with beliefs, the other dealing with observable reality.

“People like you, see yourselves as working out your personal salvation and your life projects individually within a properly constructed a political clear space; whereas the progressive left sees “salvation” in the management of the species, during its temporary life, toward the fulfillment of unconditional projects they have created to centrally reshape mankind and the world for some future end.”

And the Right does not deal with the “management of the species”? What do you call wars of choice, taxes that favor the top, lobbyists and campaign financing, SCOTUS deciding an election, filibusters, …. My point: Both sides wish to manage the species according to their own core beliefs.

“Of course as far as they are concerned, in the end everyone is just going to wind up eternally dead anyway. But that’s no reason for them not to yoke you into harness and then direct (in principle at least) every moment of your existence in the meantime.”

You are serious? This statement is so outrageously hyperbolic as to be hilariously laughable!!!

In fact, that statement pretty well describes your entire rant, filled with assumptions and hyperbolic conclusions!

Hube: “Are you being purposely obtuse? Why were the threads in question shut down, then? Was it not b/c of your continued insistence for answers to irrelevant questions in BOTH threads?”

I have no idea, as I received no personal communication about it.

I don’t regret my tactic, because it was giving back the incessant garbage that we get on here from several commenters to this blog, not heeding the pleas for improved behavior. Their stonewalling behavior pretty well proved my point. The fact of the matter is that there is no shame not to have served in the military. Interestingly, these people apparently thought that there was, however, because they refused to answer. That speaks volumes.

I fail to distinguish between what was done by one side this time, and what was being done by the other side all the time, in terms of inappropriate behavior, which is another point that needed to be made, in my view. The point has been made, so enough now!

And on the First Amendment, you can wiggle all you wish, you did not honor it. While it is certainly up to the government to enforce it, it is up to the rest of us to honor it, which Dana does on this blog, and which you did not on your blog.

And I note again that you cannot resist with your obsession with the ad homs, Hube. Your behavior remains immature, a waste, as if you have little confidence to present an argument articulately and convincingly, which is not the truth! You can!!

DNW: “This has nothing to do with some abstract observation made by Hitler to Goering on the color of the sky, and every thing to do with who is morally fitted to be regarded as worthy of political and moral trust.”

Since I do disagree so often, I feel compelled to say that with these sentiments I agree.

But then I will add that the current minority party spokespeople, like Limbaugh, Palin, Beck, and Newt need to show improvement! (Not that the majority party is not guilty at times as well.)

And on the First Amendment, you can wiggle all you wish, you did not honor it. While it is certainly up to the government to enforce it, it is up to the rest of us to honor it, which Dana does on this blog, and which you did not on your blog.

They certainly didn’t “honor it” by shutting down threads now, did they, Fossil? LOL! And how is it “wiggling” by knowing precisely how the First Amendment works, Fossil? Oh, never mind … I know your “answer” will be as incomprehensible as so many of your other comments.

And I note again that you cannot resist with your obsession with the ad homs, Hube. Your behavior remains immature, a waste

Why do you so note, Fossil? You have the same obsession! But your bigger obsession is being a hypocrite. This is why I, and everyone else, could care less than a whit about what you “note.” Get it?

But then I will add that the current minority party spokespeople, like Limbaugh, Palin, Beck, and Newt need to show improvement! (Not that the majority party is not guilty at times as well.)

Last time I checked, neither Rush Limbaugh nor Glenn Beck had ever been elected to anything, or held any appointed party position. They are exactly what they have claimed themselves to be: entertainers.

Sarah Palin was an elected official, and I suspect that she’d like to be one again; she has a lot of common sense, but she isn’t perfect. Newt Gingrich has been out of office for 12 years now, and he, too, isn’t perfect, but he has a lot of common sense.

I’d much rather that Mr Gingrich or Mrs Palin were president now than the gentleman who currently holds the office.

And I note that you cut off part of my statement, the complimentary part. Why did you do that, Hube?

A hypocrite is a rightie who claims to honor the Constitution, but who actually does not do so. Need I name names, Hubie?

And finally I note, characteristic of control freaks, that you assign yourself to be the spokesman for “everyone” else. How did that happen, or do the righties on this blog have their own JournolList? Actually Yorkshire indicated that you have, which is characteristic of weaklings who cannot stand on their own two feet by creating your own rhetoric.

Last time I checked, neither Rush Limbaugh nor Glenn Beck had ever been elected to anything, or held any appointed party position. They are exactly what they have claimed themselves to be: entertainers.

As Fox, CNN and C-SPAN carried his speech live and commercial-free, Limbaugh closed CPAC’s 37th national convention by rallying conservatives still smarting from the Democrats’ 2008 sweep of all branches of the national government and expanded electoral reign in the states.

Limbaugh exhorted conservatives to stay upbeat, blasted the alleged socialist agenda of the “Democrat Party,” and called out the new president, the one he hopes will fail. “President Obama: Your agenda is not new, it’s not change, and it’s not hope,” Limbaugh thundered, to wild applause in the Omni Shoreham’s packed Regency Ballroom, as overflow crowds in three of the hotel’s other convention rooms watched by live feed. “Spending a nation into generational debt is not an act of compassion.” Conservatism itself, preached Limbaugh, was the sole bulwark against the frightening possibility of Obama destroying the country and the Republican Party. “[Conservatism] is what it is and has been forever,” he said. “It is not something you can bend or shape.”
[...]
Those in the GOP who worry about Limbaugh’s outsize influence, and about the tightening grip the conservative elements he represents have on the Republican Party, fear that Limbaugh will become the face of a party that’s now lacking in leaders of national stature. (AFSCME and Americans United for Change recently capitalized on this fear with a TV commercial depicting Limbaugh as the person congressional Republicans follow.) But the fear is a bit belated. Limbaugh is no newcomer to national politics. He was named an honorary member of the House Republican Caucus after the GOP’s 1994 takeover of Congress. Last year, he signed a new $400 million contract to continue his radio show, which is heard by as many as 20 million listeners per week on 600-plus stations, through 2016. While talk radio has declined as political junkies move online, Limbaugh has managed to retain his audience. And those Republican pols who cross Limbaugh publicly may have to make abject and equally public apologies.

Have you ever played the game “Kingmaker”, Dana?

Sarah Palin was an elected official, and I suspect that she’d like to be one again; she has a lot of common sense,

A hypocrite is a rightie who claims to honor the Constitution, but who actually does not do so. Need I name names, Hubie?

Except that, I am indeed honoring it. Since the amendment only pertains to government, my blog (and this and others) is my property and as such I get to dictate the rules. Those rules included following the posted rules. Since you did not, you suffered the consequences. It’s you who acts unconstitutionally, by believing that you have the right to do what you wish on my property. But that isn’t a surprise — so-called progressives don’t like private property. (Just see the ideological majority in Kelo, eh?)

And finally I note, characteristic of control freaks, that you assign yourself to be the spokesman for “everyone” else.

Sorry. I meant “everyone else on the right side of the spectrum.” Because only like-minded tools tolerate you daily nonsense, Fossil.

1. “As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border.” –Sarah Palin, explaining why Alaska’s proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, interview with CBS’s Katie Couric, Sept. 24, 2008 (Watch video clip)

2. “The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.” –-Sarah Palin, in a message posted on Facebook about Obama’s health care plan, Aug. 7, 2009

3. “All of ‘em, any of ‘em that have been in front of me over all these years.” –Sarah Palin, unable to name a single newspaper or magazine she reads, interview with Katie Couric, CBS News, Oct. 1, 2008 (Watch video clip)

4. “Well, let’s see. There’s ? of course in the great history of America there have been rulings that there’s never going to be absolute consensus by every American, and there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So, you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but ?” –Sarah Palin, unable to name a Supreme Court decision she disagreed with other than Roe vs. Wade, interview with Katie Couric, CBS News, Oct. 1, 2008 (Watch video clip)

5. “‘Refudiate,’ ‘misunderestimate,’ ‘wee-wee’d up.’ English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!’” –a Tweet sent by Sarah Palin in response to being ridicule for inventing the word “refudiate,” proudly mistaking her illiteracy for literary genius, July 18, 2010

6. “We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. … We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation.” –Sarah Palin, speaking at a fundraiser in Greensoboro, N.C., Oct. 16, 2008

7. “[T]hey’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom.” –Sarah Palin, getting the vice president’s constitutional role wrong after being asked by a third grader what the vice president does, interview with NBC affiliate KUSA in Colorado, Oct. 21, 2008 (Watch video clip)

8. “We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada. And I think now, isn’t that ironic?” –Sarah Palin, admitting that her family used to get treatment in Canada’s single-payer health care system, despite having demonized such government-run programs as socialized medicine that will lead to death-panel-like rationing, March 6, 2010

9. “I think on a national level your Department of Law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we’ve been charged with and automatically throw them out.” –Sarah Palin, referring to a department that does not exist while attempting to explain why as president she wouldn’t be subjected to the same ethics investigations that compelled her to resign as governor of Alaska, ABC News interview, July 7, 2009

10. “Ohh, good, thank you, yes.” –Sarah Palin, after a notorious Canadian prank caller complimented her on the documentary about her life, Hustler’s “Nailin Paylin,” Nov. 1, 2008 (Read more about the prank call, watch the video and see the transcript)

Or is this using “common sense” in, say, Eric’s sense of the word – taking pride in being a pig-ignorant know-nothing?

And that link you provided was “proof” that Limbaugh and Beck had once held elected office?

Which part of “They are exactly what they have claimed themselves to be: entertainers” did you not understand?

They are not “just” entertainers – they are demagogues, engaged in consciously shaping the political direction of your country towards greater plutocracy. Limbaugh self-consciously holds a “kingmaker” position in Republican party politics – and exploits it.

Apparently you did not get my previous point: Government enforces the Constitution, citizens honor it. You have demonstrated on your blog that you do not honor it. You just cannot wiggle out of it, Hubie!

They are not “just” entertainers – they are demagogues, engaged in consciously shaping the political direction of your country towards greater plutocracy. Limbaugh self-consciously holds a “kingmaker” position in Republican party politics – and exploits it.

Your right to say what you want is not being questioned. You can say whatever you want on your own blog. I have a right to freedom of association. If I don’t want certain people speaking on my blog, I have the right to deny those people permission to associate.

Can you point to any proof that Olbermann et al knowingly exploit a “kingmaker” position as Limbaugh does with Republicans? Indeed, the recent remarks by Robert Gibb’s about “professional lefties” suggest just the opposite – no Republican President and certainly no Republican Congressman would dare make a similiar comment about Limbaugh.

John, I’m not talking about rights, for which I agree with your statement. However, if you exercise that right, then you are not honoring free speech. That’s my point. Hubie does not comprehend this concept!

Perry, the right to speak is not the same as the right to be heard. There is no right to be heard. If you want to speak freely, get your own blog. You may or may not get an audience, but there is no right to an audience.

Well, as of today, we know who wears the pants in the GOP. If you were wondering, it’s not the party’s elected officials.

Tuesday, Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) criticized radio host Rush Limbaugh for his attacks on the party’s congressional leadership. “I think that our leadership, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, are taking the right approach,” Gingrey told Politico. “I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don’t have to try to do what’s best for your people and your party. You know you’re just on these talk shows and you’re living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of that thing. But when it comes to true leadership, not that these people couldn’t be or wouldn’t be good leaders, they’re not in that position of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell.”

One day later, apparently cowed by the angry response he received, Gingrey was singing a different tune. His office released this statement:

Because of the high volume of phone calls and correspondence received by my office since the Politico article ran, I wanted to take a moment to speak directly to grassroots conservatives. Let me assure you, I am one of you… As long as I am in the Congress, I will continue to fight for and defend our sacred values. I have actively opposed every bailout, every rebate check, every so called “stimulus.” And on so many of these things, I see eye-to-eye with Rush Limbaugh. Regardless of what yesterday’s headline may have read, I never told Rush to back off. I regret and apologize for the fact that my comments have offended and upset my fellow conservatives — that was not my intent. I am also sorry to see that my comments in defense of our Republican Leadership read much harsher than they actually were intended, but I recognize it is my responsibility to clarify my own comments.

Now more than ever, we need to articulate a clear conservative message that distinguishes our values and our approach from those of liberal Democrats who are seeking to move our nation in the wrong direction. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, and other conservative giants are the voices of the conservative movement’s conscience. Everyday, millions and millions of Americans — myself included — turn on their radios and televisions to listen to what they have to say, and we are inspired by their words and by their determination.

The congressman also called in to Limbaugh’s show to apologize. “I want to express to you and all your listeners my very sincere regret for those comments I made yesterday… I clearly ended up putting my foot in my mouth… I regret those stupid comments,” Gingrey said.

Again, they are not “just” entertainers – they are demagogues, engaged in consciously shaping the political direction of your country towards greater plutocracy. Limbaugh self-consciously holds a “kingmaker” position in Republican party politics – and exploits it.

“Rush really represents a polar point in the Republican Party, and I think, again, it is a way to make Republicans have to choose” between his rhetoric and more inclusive, bipartisan politics, the strategist told me.

“Republicans are going to have to answer for every incendiary thing their leader says,” a Democratic leadership aide told me. And that seems to be the goal for Democrats: to make Republicans answer for Limbaugh’s comments as a voice for the party.

It wasn’t that long ago that Democrats were the ones seen as having a unity problem; now, disagreements between Limbaugh and more mainstream Republicans over the “fail” remark (Rep. Eric Cantor, one of the most prominent Republicans in Congress, distanced himself from Limbaugh over the weekend) have given Democrats an opportunity to spread some “disunity” messaging of their own.

“First of all, you have garbled the use of the pronoun “you”, adding more confusion to your rant which is uncharacteristically very poorly written. You rushed it, apparently!

Nevertheless, not only do you make an unsubstantiated assignment of the “you” and the “they”, you have found a way to state the same thought with different words in each clause. “

In reference to the word, “you”: I was replying to, and directly addressing John Hitchcock, who is I take it a self-proclaimed Christian, and who believes in the objective or even transcendental grounding of moral principles.

You on the other hand are self-proclaimed as not a Christian. Although, you certainly do like to mimic the language of one when you think that doing so will bring you some rhetorical advantage.

“Apparently you did not get my previous point: Government enforces the Constitution, citizens honor it. “

You have it backwards.

The Federal Government is constrained by the U.S. Constitution; citizens are called on to enforce a respect for those principles when the hirelings inhabiting the bureaucracy overstep, or when elected officials prove unfaithful to their duties.

Instead you misrepresent the Federal Constitution it as if it were the charter of some kind of solidarity group.

“One of the things I want to do before I die is conduct the Homeless Olympics… [Events would include] the 10-meter Shopping Cart Relay, the Dumpster Dig, and the Hop, Skip and Trip.” (L.A. Times, 1/20/91)

On NAFTA: “If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people–I’m serious, let the unskilled jobs, let the kinds of jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do–let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work.” (Radio show quoted in FRQ, Fall/93)
[...]
“Why is it that whenever a corporation fires workers it is never speculated that the workers might have deserved it?” (Ought to Be, p.275)

Teh title of this thread is very pertinent – you can’t handle the truth, can you Hube?

Which part of “They are exactly what they have claimed themselves to be: entertainers” did you not understand?

They are not “just” entertainers – they are demagogues, engaged in consciously shaping the political direction of your country towards greater plutocracy. Limbaugh self-consciously holds a “kingmaker” position in Republican party politics – and exploits it.

Rush Limbaugh certainly is popular, because he expresses very well what a lot of people have felt. Does that make him a “kingmaker?” The kingmakers in the United States are the voters, and no one else. Mr Limbaugh might support or oppose a particular candidate, but, in the end, the voters are the ones who decide. Mr Limbaugh’s “kingmaking” abilities were shown to be somewhat less than absolute in 2006 and 2008, weren’t they? Mr Limbaugh was not particularly enamored of John McCain in 2008, but he wasn’t able to prevent Senator McCain from winning primaries and the nomination, was he?

Last time I looked, the First Amendment applied to government action, not private property. I choose to keep this an (almost) absolute free speech zone, but I have the right to take such a choice because I own the site. I have been told by some people that this policy has actually hurt this blog’s traffic, because I haven’t censored some of the bickering.

If Hube wishes to moderate some of the comments on his site, he is perfectly free to do so. As a blog owner himself, he is, in effect, a publisher, and a publisher has the right to pick and choose what he will publish.

It is interesting, isn’t it, that all political blogs — this one included — are trying to shape the political direction of America. That’s what the First Amendment free speech clause was written to protect.

Rush Limbaugh certainly is popular, because he expresses very well what a lot of people have felt. Does that make him a “kingmaker?” The kingmakers in the United States are the voters, and no one else.

You obviously either don’t understand the concept, or are trying to be your usual weaselly disingenious self.

Tell me, do you believe Richard Daley had just about no political power in Chicago because he only had one vote?

Perry, the right to speak is not the same as the right to be heard. There is no right to be heard. If you want to speak freely, get your own blog. You may or may not get an audience, but there is no right to an audience.

Mr Hitchcock has had problems with his site, so it isn’t really up and running.

As far as a “right to an audience,” even if a comment is published, as they all are here, there is no guarantee that anyone is going to read your comment, agree with your comment, or even visit the site to know you exist.

By the way, since Comrade Kushchenko is so interested and demanding regarding your autobiography, why do you think it’s been so difficult to get him to answer these simple, not very intrusive, questions?

I realize, DNW, that you (see that, Comrade Kushchenko? I attached the “you” very clearly, just like DNW did when he started off quoting me.) weren’t actually requesting a direct answer to your query nor were you even attempting to make a sound query. Comrade Kuschenko is not actually interested in the answer to his question. Had he actually been interested, he could’ve done a little research and gotten his answer. But that’s not his intent. His intent is, rather, demagoguery and personal attack. While he tries to hide much of it in his passive-aggressive “omega male” fashion, it is quite obvious to any who have integrity (and, yes, some members of the left do have integrity; a couple even comment here).

While I was doing UoP online, taking a philosophy course, I related an experience with a former Plant Manager. The obviously leftist course instructor told a story of how the ancient Greeks handled people who butchered the rules of rhetoric (they killed them) and then suggested that my Plant Manager at the time should consider himself lucky he hadn’t lived in ancient Greece. Comrade Kushchenko should himself be glad he doesn’t live in ancient Greece with his heavy usage of false alternatives, intentional forgetfulness and passive-aggressive messenger-slaying.

Jeff, on the other hand, is a decided leftist who I can respect. While he and I will likely never agree on the vast majority of topics, he does indeed attempt to debate with honesty and integrity. If you go to his site, you’ll find a rather sensationalist rhetoric to many of his articles, but there is a reason for such. He is trying to get attention and discourse. He often moderates his own statements once the discourse is started. And on conservative sites, such as this one, he starts out with moderated commentary. And he’s willing to actually research material when his claims are called into question and then to admit the conservative was correct when his research clearly shows such to be the case.

Now, Jeff deserves a beat down on a great many issues because he is very clearly wrong. But Jeff is honestly wrong and thus deserves the respect given to honest folk. Comrade Kushchenko, on the other hand, has little use for honesty.

I’d point out here that Perry is a frequent commenter on Sharon’s site, and Sharon hasn’t banned him, either. I don’t know if he visit’s Hube’s site, but the Colossus of Rhodey has a specific, published comment and e-mail policy.

He says he still stops by but doesn’t comment anymore, probably b/c he was banned for a short time quite a while back. Keep in mind, this was after repeated warnings, to which he responded much as he did in this thread — with rants about how I “don’t respect the First Amendment,” blah blah blah.

Hube: “Translation: I am trying to lock up yet another thread, so that I can then complain about “lack of freedom of speech” (whilst once again demonstrating complete ignorance of the First Amendment).”

Your prediction proved to be incorrect!

If a lock up ever occurs, it is by choice of the commenters, or by action of the blog owner. I have no power or authority over either.

For the sake of clarity, I locked up the two threads to which Hube alluded specifically due to the actions of one commentator, known as Comrade Kushchenko; therefore, Hube’s translation does have merit, contrary to Comrade Kushchenko’s assertion. Since I was the author of the two articles heading the threads, I felt it within my own authority to close all comments tied to my articles.

I will not lock threads that I did not start and I will not censor comments on this site since I do not own this site. But I own my articles to the extent that I can close commentary. And I will close commentary on my articles and my articles alone if I deem Off-Topic fishing expeditions to be egregious enough to warrant such. I have only closed commentary on two articles. I do not like to make such actions because it prevents people from discussing the article, but I will if I deem it necessary to shut off wholly inappropriate demands from a thread-jacker.

Dana: “Last time I looked, the First Amendment applied to government action, not private property.”

Dana, you are missing my point. We agree on the government action part, but I have said nothing about forcing free speech on private property owners, like blogs.

Of course Hube can do what he wants with his blog; however, my complaint with him is that he does not honor free speech, as he has demonstrated on his blog several times. There is no legal requirement that he so honor free speech, but it is our First Amendment, one which we should all honor.

The petty dictator speaketh thusly:“For the sake of clarity, I locked up the two threads to which Hube alluded specifically due to the actions of one commentator, known as Comrade Kushchenko; therefore, Hube’s translation does have merit, contrary to Comrade Kushchenko’s assertion.”

Hubie: “Now, John, be prepared to be savaged for your “irreverence” for the First Amendment.”

Absolutely!!!

Whether you exceeded your authority or not, John, is up to Dana to decide. But your action certainly dishonors the core American value of free speech. Moreover, there is a conflict of interest in your action, because you were the center of focus at the time you locked down the thread. Moreover, until now you gave no reason for this action; now it is obvious that you wished to continue to weasel out of answering the simple yes or no question about whether or not you served in the military.

I continue to find it interesting and noteworthy that neither you, nor ropelight, nor assover, nor DNW have the cajones to answer. Of course you can go on refusing, but the refusal does, in my view, reveal something negative about your character. I’ll leave it up to our readers to decide for themselves.

John justifies your action by saying that although one has a right to free speech, one does not have a right to be heard. I have no idea what your legal basis is for this assertion, but it certainly is not consistent with the First Amendment, in my view. In fact, it is a subversion of it. Imagine someone standing on his soap box in the middle of the public square stating his opinions, and having some authority stopping his speech claiming that he has no right to be heard.

The internet is like the public square!

PS: Now John, what is your answer, yes or no, did you serve in the military?

You can say what you want but you cannot make anyone listen to you. NY Times has lost a huge amount of readership while the population continues to increase. Apparently, NY Times‘ right to be heard has been severely diminished. CNN, NPR, the 3 broadcast outlets and their cable derivatives have decidedly lower conglomerate viewership than previously while FOX News has gained viewership. About that right to be heard?

but it certainly is not consistent with the First Amendment, in my view.

Well, at least you made that clear. And it’s a view wholly ignorant of the law and history. Case in point: “Imagine someone standing on his soap box in the middle of the public square stating his opinions, and having some authority stopping his speech claiming that he has no right to be heard.”

You see that magic word, Fossil? Can’t you get it through your thick skull?

Now go ahead and lock down this thread too, you petty dictator!!!

I said back when and it’s already been said here by others: You want to do as you wish, Fossil? Then get your own f***ing blog. Telling others what they should do with their own property is what’s dictatorial, Geritol-swiller.

Ya know, for a petty dictator, I’m doing a rather poor job of it. I have allowed the likes of NZT, Comrade Kushchenko, cbmc, Mike G, naggy, et al to comment on my threads without nuking them or closing down threads. I close down two threads due to Comrade Kushchenko thread-jacking in a most egregious manner and suddenly I’m a petty dictator.

Like I said, for being a petty dictator, I don’t do such a great job of it.

Hitchcock: “Ya know, for a petty dictator, I’m doing a rather poor job of it. I have allowed the likes of NZT, Comrade Kushchenko, cbmc, Mike G, naggy, et al to comment on my threads without nuking them or closing down threads.”

Gee, John, that is so nice of you! You have well demonstrated your character flaws with this arrogant outburst, but no surprise at all! Doesn’t it feel good to exert your power?

Hubie: “I said back when and it’s already been said here by others: You want to do as you wish, Fossil? Then get your own f***ing blog. Telling others what they should do with their own property is what’s dictatorial, Geritol-swiller.”

Hubie, you have made it abundantly clear over and over that you cannot stand criticism of your views. I understand that you think you are never wrong, which is part of your pathology, as a little introspection might make this clear to you. You have an obsessive compulsive impulse to get on here on most of my posts. If they are so idiotic, why don’t you try ignoring them? The answer is, you can’t. And then you have the chutzpah to assign yourself to speak for others on here. That is another aspect of the same pathology. It doesn’t bother me at all, because I am used to this treatment from you. But I reserve the right to call you out on it, that is, providing Hitchcock does not shut down the thread.

Ya know, for a petty dictator, I’m doing a rather poor job of it. I have allowed the likes of NZT, Comrade Kushchenko, cbmc, Mike G, naggy, et al to comment on my threads without nuking them or closing down threads.

Because you’re aware that Dana would probably yank your admin rights if you started throwing your weight around as you do when you act as a petty dictator on your own political blog. Which is an important reason for this blog having a far more active discussion on it than your own.

Ya know, for a petty dictator, I’m doing a rather poor job of it. I have allowed the likes of NZT, Comrade Kushchenko, cbmc, Mike G, naggy, et al to comment on my threads without nuking them or closing down threads. (quoting me)

Because you’re aware that Dana would probably yank your admin rights if you started throwing your weight around as you do when you act as a petty dictator on your own political blog.

And here NZT accidentally agrees that I’m not all that dictatorial. Of course, NZT doesn’t understand that my actions here are out of respect for the fact Dana Pico owns the blog and sets the rules, rather than out of fear of repercussion. And therein lies the difference between myself and many of the left: our disparate reasons for our choices of action.

Then I would ask John Hitchcock why he was so reluctant to admit that?

My guess is that his service was of the order of 25 years ago, as John says he is about 45, which brings us back to the mid-eighties to early nineties, up to the first Gulf War. Maybe John served in Kuwait, or even Iraq back then, in combat.
Could have been a pretty rough experience.

I then honor you, John Hitchcock, for your willingness to serve our country.

It remains sad to me that we have to send our sons and daughters into combat. That said, the Gulf War I battle was certainly justified, and successful, in contrast to the Iraq and Afghanistan disasters.

After an American combat veteran objects to Perry’s hypocritical lecturing about manners and civility, Perry gently folds his wings around a neurotic – if not outright mentally ill – foreign librarian who had attacked the American combat veteran as a coward, and declares that the librarian makes his contributions too.

Perry then demands the military record of any who dare to laugh and point this comic absurdity out to him; and in an act of protective deflection, attempts to shelter his little chick by calling critics of his moral hypocrisy, physical cowards.

Perry is then offered a chance to prove up on his cowardice charge in person. Perry hastily declines.

Perry then alludes to his own military record, to some uncertain purpose, but presumably having to do either with his supposed patriotism, or his own physical courage.

Perry is then challenged to compare how many communists he has himself killed in combat with those notched by the combat veteran who Perry’s little buddy had earlier attacked as a coward.

Perry declares such questions as Unchristian and out of bounds, and reveals, apparently, that whatever he was doing while in the military himself, it had nothing whatever to do with his own active slaying of leftist totalitarians while in combat.

Then Perry sails off on a progressive-politics tack apparently having something to do with lemming-like self-sacrifice to the greater whole, or amenability to direction by “superiors”, or social solidarity and barracks room joie de vivre, or some other pseudo-religious collectivist horseshit actually having nothing at all to do with personal physical courage, or a battlefield demonstrated commitment to political liberty, or even a demonstrable moral obligation.

And so it goes. Bill Clinton, William Ayers, the NZTroll et al, lie safe in the shelter of Perry’s enveloping, nurturing, hypocritical bosom, while …

Not I, Hube. I also happen to support Israeli’s right to exist. So kindly do not put words into my mouth.

However, you fully support the racist/apartheid policies of Israel which pretty well labels your views vis-a-vis that particular issue.

I think this statement pretty well expresses my concern:

In detail, critics of Israeli policy say that “a system of control” including separate roads, discriminatory marriage law, the West Bank barrier, use of Palestinians as cheap hard labour, Palestinian West Bank enclaves, inequities in infrastructure, legal rights, and access to land and resources between Palestinians and Israeli residents in the Israeli-occupied territories resembles some aspects of the South African apartheid regime, and that elements of Israel’s occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid, which are contrary to international law. Some commantators extend the analogy, or accusation, to include Arab citizens of Israel, describing their citizenship status as second-class.

I am a critic of some Israeli policy, as I am likewise of extremist elements on the Palestinian side, as is evident in many comments I have made over time, which can be a new topic if any of the CSPT crew wishes to address this topic.

Finally, Hube, if you truly believe your diagnosis of Alzheimers, all the more reason then that you should ignore my rantings instead of responding to them with your consistent nastiness. Or, if you must, why don’t you debate/discuss, and leave the nastiness aside?

I also happen to support Israeli’s right to exist. So kindly do not put words into my mouth.

No you don’t. Your own comments have proved it. You want to see it destroyed. Completely and utterly.

Or, if you must, why don’t you debate/discuss, and leave the nastiness aside?

Oh, you mean like this? “However, you fully support the racist/apartheid policies of Israel which pretty well labels your views vis-a-vis that particular issue.” Is that “debating and discussing?” No, it’s not. It’s nastiness, pure and simple.

“Ya know, for a petty dictator, I’m doing a rather poor job of it. I have allowed the likes of NZT, Comrade Kushchenko, cbmc, Mike G, naggy, et al to comment on my threads without nuking them or closing down threads. I close down two threads due to Comrade Kushchenko thread-jacking in a most egregious manner and suddenly I’m a petty dictator.

Like I said, for being a petty dictator, I don’t do such a great job of it.”

Sweeping your front porch off is dictatorship of a certain circumscribed kind too.

I suppose you could experiment with enforcing some discussion rules, and simply delete flamer’s messages while leaving a short explanation in place of what the specific offense was. This would lead to shorter, but perhaps more relevant threads in some instances, as people tend to respond, as both trolls and administrators seeking audiences well know, to personal provocations.

And of course the stated purpose of some, the NZTroll being one in particular, Henry Whistler being another, is to use the Internet in order to disrupt the on-line activities of, and antagonize or inflame those, whom they view as their political enemies; and to count coup while doing so.

That said, the Gulf War I battle was certainly justified, and successful, in contrast to the Iraq and Afghanistan disasters.

Iraq was certainly more expensive and longer than we had hoped, but it is a war that is basically won, with just some mopping up to do and strengthening of the in-place Iraqi regime. I know that Perry would have preferred to see the Iraqi people continue to suffer under the Ba’ath Party regime rather than for us to have liberated them, but once the decision was taken and the war prosecuted, it’s kind of difficult to call a won war a disaster.

DNW: “And of course the stated purpose of some, the NZTroll being one in particular, Henry Whistler being another, is to use the Internet in order to disrupt the on-line activities of, and antagonize or inflame those, whom they view as their political enemies; and to count coup while doing so.”

Since you insist on wrongly applying your criticism to the side you chose, you could at least include the other side, where your criticism is even more applicable, including yourself, of course, as a member of the “other side”!

“DNW: “And of course the stated purpose of some, the NZTroll being one in particular, Henry Whistler being another, is to use the Internet in order to disrupt the on-line activities of, and antagonize or inflame those, whom they view as their political enemies; and to count coup while doing so.”

Since you insist on wrongly applying your criticism to the side you chose, you could at least include the other side, where your criticism is even more applicable, including yourself, of course, as a member of the “other side”!”

I can quote Whistler and the Troll to the effect I claimed. I can quote the Troll to the effect of admitting that he acts as a troll.

Can you quote Hube or Ropelight or me as saying that our purpose on the Internet was to disrupt, antagonize, or collect bloody shirts taken from our exchanges with the left, to wave around?

By the way do you think that:

… there anything at all beyond the rightful scope of legitimate government to command or prohibit? If so, what, and why?

Dana: “I know that Perry would have preferred to see the Iraqi people continue to suffer under the Ba’ath Party regime rather than for us to have liberated them, but once the decision was taken and the war prosecuted, it’s kind of difficult to call a won war a disaster.”

Now you can take your tongue out of your cheek, as you know that is not my view.

My view simply is that it was up to the suffering Iraqis to take care of Hussein. We could have helped them from the outside, but it was not our responsibility to conduct their civil war for them. In contrast, Gulf War I involved a response to an attack, with a real coalition too.

How many other countries are suffering from barbaric government leaders? Should we go in on behalf of the people of these countries?

Your position on this issue is difficult to defend. So is your statement earlier that we have won the Iraq War. Let us wait another five years before reaching such a conclusion.

DNW: “I can quote Whistler and the Troll to the effect I claimed. I can quote the Troll to the effect of admitting that he acts as a troll.

Can you quote Hube or Ropelight or me as saying that our purpose on the Internet was to disrupt, antagonize, or collect bloody shirts taken from our exchanges with the left, to wave around?”

I understand well that a troll is one who disagrees with your far right/libertarian philosophy/policies. ‘Tis very convenient, then, for you to identify who the trolls are and are not!

“… there anything at all beyond the rightful scope of legitimate government to command or prohibit? If so, what, and why?”

Of course. Government cannot properly function without the consent of the governed. Thus, each individual’s values comprise the ultimate authority, even in the case of repressive governments being in power.

“… as a liberal, you are personally fitted to direct your own life?”

Of course. But I well recognize that I live in the context of a community, nation, and globe, which constrains the degree of independent direction that I can actualize. Where the line is drawn will always be the subject of debate and decision, with decision being an act of compromise. This does not mean that one must compromise one’s personal values, rather, always to be willing to stand up for them in open discourse, undeterred by the views of others while remaining open always to their views in order to work out practical solutions.

I understand well that a troll is one who disagrees with your far right/libertarian philosophy/policies. ‘Tis very convenient, then, for you to identify who the trolls are and are not!

In other words, “No, I can’t quote Hube or Ropelight or DNW as saying that our purpose on the Internet was to disrupt, antagonize, or collect bloody shirts taken from our exchanges with the left, to wave around.”

Hube: “In other words, “No, I can’t quote Hube or Ropelight or DNW as saying that our purpose on the Internet was to disrupt, antagonize, or collect bloody shirts taken from our exchanges with the left, to wave around.””

No. My point is that we are all trolls, rather than the several that DNW designated. Delaware Liberals might define DNW, ropelight, Hitchcock, Eric, and you as trolls. I still say no.

Dana: “I know that Perry would have preferred to see the Iraqi people continue to suffer under the Ba’ath Party regime rather than for us to have liberated them, but once the decision was taken and the war prosecuted, it’s kind of difficult to call a won war a disaster.”

Now you can take your tongue out of your cheek, as you know that is not my view.

It wasn’t? Such would certainly have been the effect of your views!

My view simply is that it was up to the suffering Iraqis to take care of Hussein. We could have helped them from the outside, but it was not our responsibility to conduct their civil war for them.

Dusty Sprngfield had an answer to the effectiveness of wishing and hoping and thinking and praying:

Wishing and hoping and thinking and praying, but not taking any action would have left the Iraqi people exactly where they were, oppressed. Whether it was our responsibility to help is debatable, but the fact is that if we hadn’t taken action, they’d still be enslaved.

If you have the power to do something, but choose not to do it, then you have taken an action just as surely as if you had acted. The most apt comparison would be to the bystanders who watch someone being raped or mugged, but don’t want to “get involved,” and simply scurry away.

In contrast, Gulf War I involved a response to an attack, with a real coalition too.

And the elder President Bush’s greatest success was tempered by his greatest failure, the decision to stop fighting and not continuing on to Baghdad and deposing Saddam Hussein in 1991.

How many other countries are suffering from barbaric government leaders? Should we go in on behalf of the people of these countries?

Unfortunately, our power is limited, and we can’t help everybody. But I can think of a lot of people we did help liberate, frequently against the opposition of the Democratic Party: think of Nicaragua, of Grenada, of Panama (both under President Reagan and President Theodore Roosevelt). Even the first Persian Gulf War, which you said was justified, was opposed by the majority of Democratic congressmen, at least as scored by their votes on the authorization bill.

“… there anything at all beyond the rightful scope of legitimate government to command or prohibit? If so, what, and why?”

Perry:

“Of course. Government cannot properly function without the consent of the governed. Thus, each individual’s values comprise the ultimate authority, even in the case of repressive governments being in power.”

You realize of course that that is not an answer. I ask you to name a case, and state it, and you start talking about conscience in the face of “repression”.

Ok, then, how do you know when a government is oppressive? Do you ask the UN? LOL

That said, the Gulf War I battle was certainly justified, and successful, in contrast to the Iraq and Afghanistan disasters.

Why was that justified, and not Afghanistan? Iraq 2?

I dunno – maybe in Gulf War I, you were fighting a country that started an unprovoked aggressive war and invaded another country, and in Gulf War II, you were the country that started an unprovoked aggressive war and invaded another country, perhaps?

Except, that, of course that invasion of Kuwait had nothing to do with us, now, did it? Why are you so inconsistent, jackass? And, of course, you totally ignored Afghanistan … all par for your pathetic course.

PiaToR: I dunno – maybe in Gulf War I, you were fighting a country that started an unprovoked aggressive war and invaded another country, and in Gulf War II, you were the country that started an unprovoked aggressive war and invaded another country, perhaps?

Hube: Except, that, of course that invasion of Kuwait had nothing to do with us, now, did it?